The assumption of Mary

[Pax]

First of all I like the reference “private interpretation” and secondly prophecy in this context refers to teaching as much anything else. I’ll give you a break here and kid you a just a little. I will not refer to 1 Peter 1:20-21, but I will refer you to the correct verse which is 2 Peter 1:20-21. You can’t wiggle out of the implications of this verse. You cannot interpret scripture without a guide. Peter tells us that people misinterpret Paul’s writings and twist them and the other scriptures to their own destruction. Those people may not believe they twist it to their own destruction, but apparently they veered away from the truth because of their own ideas. They didn’t need to listen to Peter or Paul or any of the apostles because they apparently knew better.

Even the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:30-31 is a lesson in this regard. Phillip asks the man, who is a well educated person, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. As Catholics we are not lazy, but we are instead like the Ethiopian Eunuch who realizes that he needs a guide.

In Luke 10:16 Jesus tells his disciples, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Jesus gives the keys and the power to bind and loose to Peter, and then gives power to bind and loose to the other apostles. He tells them “go forth and teach all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In the Book of Acts we see the succession in the line of the apostles when Peter talks about replacing Judas and so he says, “and 'His office let another take.” Then in Acts 1:24-25 we read, "And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” We also see Paul in his 1letter to Timothy refering to the office of Bishop. We could go on and on. Paul even tells Timothy in 1 Tim. 1:3 to tell certain people “not to teach” because they teach errors. Authority is clearly established in the Church. I could cite more verses but you get the idea. Sure, scripture does not refer to the teaching arm of the Church as the magesterium, but that is what “magesterium” means.

No one is saying that people cannot read the bible for themselves and get a lot out of it. What we are saying is that for purposes of true teaching and doctrine you must have an authoritative teacher. Just look around you and see what has happened in Christendom where it is everyone for themselves using scripture alone.

 

[Kinsman]

Pax:

No one is saying that people cannot read the bible for themselves and get a lot out of it. What we are saying is that for purposes of true teaching and doctrine you must have an authoritative teacher. Just look around you and see what has happened in Christendom where it is everyone for themselves using scripture alone.

In the second Pet. passage Peter is referring to the prophets who spoke not according to their own private interpretation, but like a ship being propelled along by the wind, they were moved by the Holy Spirit and spoke from God. It has absolutely nothing to do with restricting men from interpreting Scripture but submitting to Rome’s magesterium as their authority and guide. All the examples you gave said nothing about Christians having to appeal to Rome’s magesterium for authoritative guidance. God does raise up teachers in the Church (“Church” here having its Biblical meaning, “the Body of Christ,” not the Roman Church ), but they’re not infallible, that’s why James warns that many not become teachers because they will incur a stricter judgment. Of course the Ethiopian Eunuch needed Philip’s help interpreting Is. 53, he knew nothing of Jesus Christ, but any true believer today could have helped him with that passage. Philip was not a Roman Catholic and did not appeal to the Roman Church as his authority for the interpretation he gave the eunuch. You see, Pax, you read into all your examples your doctrine of Rome’s magesterial authority. Nowhere in Scripture is it taught that the interpretation of Scripture is restricted only to certain men. Not even Augustine appealed to Rome for authority, nor was he a Roman Catholic. Yet Rome often sites Augustine’s teachings as authoritative, as well as other early Church writers, who certainly were not Roman Catholic, either. Just because the Church of Rome claimed cathlolicity doesn’t make it so, Pax. The Eastern church claimed othodoxy, but that didn’t make it so. Islam claims Muhammad as God’s only prophet, but it “ain’t so.” “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but…” You know the rest.

 

[Kinsman]

mrS4ntA:

In fact, St Augustine was the originator of the maxim: “Roma locuta est, causa finita est” – Rome has spoken, the matter is settled. and also:“I would not believe in the Gospel myself in the Church did not move me to do so…”

Wow, talk about taking a man’s words out of context and applying them to your own doctrine. Augustine in no way here claims that Rome’s “magesterium” had the only authority to interpret Scripture. What nonsense.

 

[Kinsman]

Pax:

In the Book of Acts we see the succession in the line of the apostles when Peter talks about replacing Judas and so he says, “and 'His office let another take.” Then in Acts 1:24-25 we read, "And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.”

I said my piece but this one I just can’t leave alone. What was happening here was replacing Judas with another Apostle. This was not an example of Apostolic succession. Please!! The qualification for the office was that the man was with them from the beginning, beginning with the baptism of John, until the day Jesus was taken up; and most importantly, personally witnessed His bodily resurrection. That is, he had to have seen the resurrection Christ. These were the qualifications of an Apostle who were called to be His witnesses. These restricted qualifications in themselves, much less no Biblical teaching on it, prohibit the idea of Apostolic succession. By presenting this as an example are you now concluding that Rome’s magesterium all personally saw the resurrected Christ? That they were with the original 12 and actually witnessed the events? They must be very, very old indeed and miraculously preserved.

 

[Kinsman]

:tsktsk: Look it is really quite simple, both the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary.

Jesus was the only person ever to have created His own Mother. Now if you had the ability to do that; create your own mother, wouldn’t you want to make her perfect. Well she was perfect in being born without origional sin, all during her life, and in death.

O’K ? Thank you.

Thanks for your opinion, jonman, but the true Christian faith is rooted in actaul historical facts. What makes it superior to all other “religions” on earth is that it is not based on what seems reasonable to men, but on what God has Himself revealed. There is absolutely no divine revelation on Mary’s “immaculate conception” nor her “assumption.” That’s the whole point of the opposition. Rome can only fall back on, "well, it seems reasonable to us, therefore, you must believe it.

 

[Pax]

Kinsman:

In the second Pet. passage Peter is referring to the prophets who spoke not according to their own private interpretation, but like a ship being propelled along by the wind, they were moved by the Holy Spirit and spoke from God. It has absolutely nothing to do with restricting men from interpreting Scripture but submitting to Rome’s magesterium as their authority and guide. All the examples you gave said nothing about Christians having to appeal to Rome’s magesterium for authoritative guidance. God does raise up teachers in the Church (“Church” here having its Biblical meaning, “the Body of Christ,” not the Roman Church ), but they’re not infallible, that’s why James warns that many not become teachers because they will incur a stricter judgment. Of course the Ethiopian Eunuch needed Philip’s help interpreting Is. 53, he knew nothing of Jesus Christ, but any true believer today could have helped him with that passage. Philip was not a Roman Catholic and did not appeal to the Roman Church as his authority for the interpretation he gave the eunuch. You see, Pax, you read into all your examples your doctrine of Rome’s magesterial authority. Nowhere in Scripture is it taught that the interpretation of Scripture is restricted only to certain men. Not even Augustine appealed to Rome for authority, nor was he a Roman Catholic. Yet Rome often sites Augustine’s teachings as authoritative, as well as other early Church writers, who certainly were not Roman Catholic, either. Just because the Church of Rome claimed cathlolicity doesn’t make it so, Pax. The Eastern church claimed othodoxy, but that didn’t make it so. Islam claims Muhammad as God’s only prophet, but it “ain’t so.” “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but…” You know the rest.

Kinsman,

You are clearly wrong on nearly everything you said in this post.

You twisted the plain meaning and warning of Peter.

You distort what was clearly going on with the Ethiopian Eunuch who was reading Isaiah and did not understand it. Sure, he may not have understood anything about propehcies concerning Jesus, but he doesn’t tell that to Phillip. Instead, he merely says that he could not understand what he was reading without someone to guide him. He did not limit himself to only a part of the text.

Phillip was a Roman Catholic as were all of the apostles and disciples of Jesus. If you think Phillip would have argued with Peter about Gentiles and circumcision or other matters settled by Peter then you are dreaming.

Try reading the early Church Fathers beginning with Ignatius of Antioch who was a first century bishop, ordained by the Apostle John, and martyred by the Romans. You will learn a thing or two about the term “catholic” and about church authority.

Your statements about St. Augustine demonstrate one of three things. 1. You are either extraordinarily ignorant of history, 2. You are dishonest, or 3. you are simply trying to bait people. If you wish to learn a little bit about the man and his Catholicity go to the following website and read the many quotes from St. Augustine contained therein:

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ122.HTM#VII.%20St.%20Augustine

Your post has left me severly irritated. Your ridiculous claims concerning Augustine put your other claims about scripture, about exegesis, and about Catholics’ inability to engage in honest exegesis, into proper perspective. You are so utterly anti-Catholic that you cannot honestly read and understand scripture, you cannot fairly evaluate Catholic teaching, and you are utterly unable to read and understand history. I give up. I am finished addressing your posts.

I have no hard feelings, but this kind of exchange is not for me. My prayers are with you.

Pax

 

[mrS4ntA]

Kinsman:

Wow, talk about taking a man’s words out of context and applying them to your own doctrine. Augustine in no way here claims that Rome’s “magesterium” had the only authority to interpret Scripture. What nonsense.

Oh, did I? read for yourself the full excerpt ofhis sermon 131 !!

 

[MattG]

Eric Goodrich:

As far as the Catholic Church believes, Mary was conceived without original sin and remained a virgin her entire life.

Matthew:

Yes, Eric, read Genesis 3:15 for the prophesy of this and read the preceding verse for the witness of it.

Eric Goodrich:

Although Mary is not mentioned much in the New Testament (as I PRAY you all agree that she is not by ANY Means the central character) I have a difficult time believing that she did not have a family with her Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Would her having children as a married woman be a sin? I think that honoring her husband and her marriage would almost certainly mean that she would have had more children.
Please give me some biblical backup that she remained a virgin until her death and that Mary and Joseph had no children.

Matthew:

No, it would not have been a sin … for Mary is and was sinless. And she does have other children … inmya version of St. Kolbe’s quote: If you want to have Jesus as your Brother, you must have Mary as your Mother. For your question about Biblical backup of her perpetual virginity please read Ezekiel 44:2.

Eric, please find in the Bible someone other than Jesus who is called a son of Mary. There are five women named Mary in the Gospels.

 

[mrS4ntA]

Kinsman:

Wow, talk about taking a man’s words out of context and applying them to your own doctrine. Augustine in no way here claims that Rome’s “magesterium” had the only authority to interpret Scripture. What nonsense.

Ok, if you are soooo fond of context, here’s let me give you what St Augustine said:

“… jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est”

translated:

“. . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished.”

in context?
first, let me paraphrase that:
Two councils (from the African bishops) had been sent to Rome (the Apostolic See) and Rome had replied by sending a reports (rescripts – in other words, “had spoken”), and upon that the cause is finished.

second, let me explain why he said that:
the controversy at the time was that of Pelagianism. Pelagianism basically is a condemned heresy that denies Original Sin and Christian Grace. Pelagius was a Catholic priest from Britain (though there are discussions that he came from Scotland or Ireland). At some point Pelagius moved to Rome, and according to St. Augustine, (De peccat. orig., xxiv) he lived in Rome "for a very long time.”[3] Pelagius had denied Original Sin and was teaching this. In 411 AD he left Rome for Africa, where he first meets St. Augustine. The African bishops, of which St. Augustine has become the spokesperson, convene a council in 416 and they, through Augustine, write to Pope Innocent I.

Read the full explanation here, contained therein is excerpts from the letters written to Pope Innocent I.

 

[hlgomez]

Why can’t this all inclusive Biblical truth apply to Jesus? My goodness man, need you be told??? Jesus was not of Adam’s race!! He was not a son of Adam, but the Holy Son of God. In fact, God Himself. Certainly a body was prepared for Him (Heb. 10:5) through the virgin birth, but that in no way required the virgin to be sinless. She was not the progenitor of His existence. He is eternally God the Son. In Him there is no darkness at all, neither prior to His incarnation nor after.

KINSMAN,

Are you serious in your study of the Bible, or you missed something from your homework? The latter which I highlighted for you is correct, but the former is erroneous.
This is what the Bible says; “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham became the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers…” If we continue in this line from Abraham and trace it back, we will end up with Adam, the first man.
Now, to understand the whole picture. We are speaking of Jesus humanity, not His divinity, in regard to his human ancestors. The Logos became man, thru the Virgin birth. But His divinity, He was eternal. But since the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us, he assumed our human nature. Where was our human nature came from? The answer is from Adam. Therefore, Jesus human nature came from Adam thru the Virgin Mary.

But we are not speaking of the sins of Adam. Jesus did not inherit the original sin of Adam BUT He comes from Adam’s ancestry. He is God, true, but assumed human nature–that’s the core doctrine of Christianity. God made it possible that thru the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Jesus may not inherit the original sin. For Mary was created by God to be the Spotless Vessel for the Second Person of the Trinity.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

KINSMAN,

If you deny Christ’s ancestry coming from Adam–you deny the reality of the incarnation of the Son of God. Try to recall what Sripture tells us, and I’m sure you are aware of it, it says that Jesus became like us except sin. Jesus didn’t became man for the sake of salvation alone–for He can deliver salvation to human beings with just a click of His mighty hand–He is the Almighty! But He choose to assume our human nature, taking everything from it for Himself except sin. God choose to speak to us in our language when He humbled Himself, taking our human nature.

Pio

 

[Kinsman]

hlgomez:

KINSMAN,

Are you serious in your study of the Bible, or you missed something from your homework? The latter which I highlighted for you is correct, but the former is erroneous.
This is what the Bible says; “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham became the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers…” If we continue in this line from Abraham and trace it back, we will end up with Adam, the first man.
Now, to understand the whole picture. We are speaking of Jesus humanity, not His divinity, in regard to his human ancestors. The Logos became man, thru the Virgin birth. But His divinity, He was eternal. But since the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us, he assumed our human nature. Where was our human nature came from? The answer is from Adam. Therefore, Jesus human nature came from Adam thru the Virgin Mary.

But we are not speaking of the sins of Adam. Jesus did not inherit the original sin of Adam BUT He comes from Adam’s ancestry. He is God, true, but assumed human nature–that’s the core doctrine of Christianity. God made it possible that thru the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Jesus may not inherit the original sin. For Mary was created by God to be the Spotless Vessel for the Second Person of the Trinity.Pio

Yes, Pio, I’m VERY serious when it comes to Bible study. Yes it is true that the divine took on humanity, and the point of entrance was the virgin birth. What you fail to understand is the significance of that virgin birth. God the Son most certainly took on humanity, fully man, but not man’s nature in Adam. I agree with you that he assumed humanity through the virgin birth, but not Adam’s “nature,” for in Adam “ALL sinned” (Rom. 5:12, when Adam sinned). Jesus Christ is the new Federal Head, the “Last Adam,” the “second Man.” This would be a contradiction if He is connected organically to the first man.

Jesus Christ, the Last Adam, is God’s only provision for men, born dead, in Adam. The Righteous died for the unrighteous, the just for the unjust. When one is born again through faith in Christ (not baptism) he is no longer in Adam, but “in Christ,” “made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). My history in Adam ended at the cross, my old self (in Adam) being crucified with Him (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 2:20).

The irony is that Paul revealed these Federal truths to the church at Rome (Rom. 5:12-21), yet it the “Roman” church that denies them.

 

[Kinsman]

hlgomez:

KINSMAN,If you deny Christ’s ancestry coming from Adam–you deny the reality of the incarnation of the Son of God. Try to recall what Sripture tells us, and I’m sure you are aware of it, it says that Jesus became like us except sin.

“Except sin” is the key phrase. He was not born in Adam.

Jesus didn’t became man for the sake of salvation alone–for He can deliver salvation to human beings with just a click of His mighty hand–He is the Almighty!

This is an horrendous statement. For by it you utterly fail to understand the infinite hoiliness of God and the infinite justice of God, all understood in the self-less sacrifice of God the Son.

HEB 9:22 “And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”

The sacrificial system in the Law was a type of the one final sacrifice of God the Son for the forgiveness of all man’s sins. To say that God could deliver salvation, and waive the just penalty of sin, by the click of His hand, totally denies the *absolute necessity *of Christ’s sacrificial death (much less devalues it). You have a real probem here and I think you’d better talk to one of your apologists because I don’t think even they would agree. But if they do, then you’ve all got a real problem.

 

[hlgomez]

Where did you get this “federal head” term? Sounds like you have your own church and have your own dogmas, huh?

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

KINSMAN,

My question for you is this: WAS ADAM BORN WITH SIN OR NOT?

Probably you will get the whole picture.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

This is an horrendous statement. For by it you utterly fail to understand the infinite hoiliness of God and the infinite justice of God, all understood in the self-less sacrifice of God the Son.

God can do all things, that’s the main point. You can’t limit His power to do things. It’s not a horrendous statement as you may describe, but what I am trying to say is it is possible that He can do that, BUT He choose not to do it for reason that’s beyond our understanding.

Pio

 

[Kinsman]

hlgomez:

God can do all things, that’s the main point. You can’t limit His power to do things. It’s not a horrendous statement as you may describe, but what I am trying to say is it is possible that He can do that, BUT He choose not to do it for reason that’s beyond our understanding.Pio

What God did through the sacrifice of His Son to ensure our salvation, and why He did it, is not beyond our understanding. These things are explained clearly in the N.T., especially in the Pauline Epistles.

Yes, God can do all things based on WHAT He is: *omnipotent. But, *nevertheless, being omnipotent there are still some things He cannot do based on WHO He is:

He cannot sin, contradict Himself, make a mistake, fail, tempt anyone with evil or be tempted with evil, etc. He cannot forgive sin unless the penalty is paid and accepted, for to do so without the payment would violate His justice. Though He can (and did) provide the means and the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ, He cannot cause (make) anyone to love Him or to receive the gift of salvation in Christ, for to do so would destroy the very essence of love and of a gift.

 

[Kinsman]

hlgomez:

KINSMAN, My question for you is this: WAS ADAM BORN WITH SIN OR NOT? Probably you will get the whole picture.Pio

Adam wasn’t born, he was created. He BECAME a sinner by transgressing a definite commandment. The rest of us are BORN sinners, being IN ADAM. We did not have to transgress any commandment. That’s why there is such a tragic thing as infant mortality. Christ, through the miracle of the virgin birth, came into this world avoiding direct connection to Adam’s sinful race. This is the reason for the virgin birth.

 

[hlgomez]

KINSMAN,

I’m afraid you are being lead into error by your own personal views. Let’s look at what St. Augustine, one of the Church Fathers–early Christian believers has to say:

For by the gift of God, that is, by the Holy Spirit, there was granted to us so great humility on the part of so great a God, that He deemed it worthy of Him*** to assume the entire ***nature of man (totum hominem) in the womb of the Virgin, inhabiting the material body so that it sustained no detriment (integrum), and leaving it(1) without detriment. This temporal dispensation is in many ways craftily assailed by the heretics. ***But if any one shall have grasped the ******catholic faith, so as to believe that the entire nature of man was assumed *by the Word of God, that is to say, body, soul, and spirit, he has sufficient defense against those parties (heretics).

---

Now, I am not making personal judgement on your part. This is what the early Christians believe and is also the belief of the Catholic Church. For by denying that Christ is the flesh of the flesh and bone of the bones of Mary, that is, having assumed our human nature–you are in error.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

Adam wasn’t born, he was created. He BECAME a sinner by transgressing a definite commandment. The rest of us are BORN sinners, being IN ADAM.

I agree with you, he wasn’t born, but created. Pardon for my hasty reply. Take a look at your statement, He “became”, not that he was “before” a sinner. Christ bore our human nature, not from “alien” or from “different kind” of human nature. It is our flesh that he bore, but he didn’t have the sinful nature, which, originally wasn’t in Adam when he was created. Don’t twist the meaning of the Scripture.

Pio